| Rath said: Anarchy is the extreme of libertarianism. To be a libertarian doesn't mean you have to take it to the very extreme though, it's a sliding scale. Just like how socialists don't have to believe that all property has to be communually owned. The libertarians on this board don't take libertarianism to the point where they reject all established authority. |
Yep, this is a large misunderstanding of Libertarianism. I've been a registered Libertarian for 13 years now. While I'm all for small(ish) government, I also see the need for regulation more than hardcore Libertarians.
Basically, I believe in states' rights and regulation. The government should not control industries outright but they should have a moderate hand in saying what they can and cannot do to the public. Why? Because a complete lack of regulation (this is really where hardcore Libertarianism falls apart) boils down to a "might makes right" society. We've saw the side effects of this in 2008. The government started deregulating loaning institutions in the 90s, those institutions started handing out money willy-nilly for short-term profit, and then they completely blew up the economy as it all came crashing back in on them. Then we saw peoples' homes foreclosed and we bailed out the sons of bitches who did it.
People need to show personal responsibility but you cannot expect the same from business. They have other priorities in mind and often, those priorities are directly in conflict with the public good. That's where regulation comes in. The government isn't particularly good at regulation but they're the only choice we have that has any interest in preserving a decent society for all.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
